Seeing Redskins: Should media interpret what is offensive?

Some inflential members of the media have begun rejecting use of the term “Redskins,” citing the mascot name of the NFL team in Washington, D.C., as offensive and racist. Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images

Once upon a time, Jack Kent Cooke concurrently was the sole owner of the NFL’s Washington Redskins and the Los Angeles Daily News, from 1985 until his death in 1998.

Having worked for the Cooke media empire during that period, I was curious if there were ever an instance when a gumption-filled editor, sensitive to the word “Redskins” as it represents what has been interpreted as a derogatory slur against Native Americans, ever stood up and made a case among his peers –- or personally to Cooke -- to have that nickname banned from print in his publication.

I couldn’t find anyone who remembered such an act of defiance ever taking place.

Not that it would have been the best way to advance one’s career during that Cooke regime. But then again, could it have started some activism that made these latest noble media boycott attempts seem trivial and unnecessary?

The media will call out current team owner Daniel Snyder to change his franchise’s name. It’s ultimately his decision, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell meekly says. Yet Snyder recently told USA Today: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. Never -- you can use caps.”

Thwarted with that tactic, the media also has the ability to take it upon itself and change its own editorial policy, subtle or not.

Have an epiphany and take a number. The line’s getting longer by the day.

Last week, Peter King tactfully slipped a note into a column on his new Monday Morning Quarterback website (MMQB.SI.com) to explain why he would stop using Redskins: “For the last two or three years, I’ve been uneasy when I sat down to write about the team and had to use the nickname. But this year, I decided to stop entirely because it offends too many people, and I don’t want to add to the offensiveness ...

“I have no idea if this is the right thing to do for the public, or the politically correct thing to do, and I’m not going to sit here and preach about it ... Some of you will view this is as grandstanding. Some of you will wonder: You’ve covered the NFL for 30 seasons, and just now you realize the name is objectionable?

“All I can say is you grow in your business and you grow as a person.”

Prolific writer and author Gregg Easterbrook, who writes the “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” column for ESPN.com and has a book coming out soon called “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America,” made note of King’s pledge in writing this week’s column: “TMQ has been on this bandwagon for a decade, and it’s nice to have company on a bandwagon ... King’s decision shows he listens to his conscience. The world would be a better place if more people with insider status listened to the voices of their consciences.”

Advertisement

“Insiders” thinking outside the tackle box is a double-edged pen (which, can be mightier than the sword, we’re told).

USA Today’s Christine Brennan, a former beat writer for the team at the Washington Post, has joined the movement, explaining herself in Thursday’s column: “Even if only some Native Americans think it’s racist, here’s news for the rest of us, whether we want to hear it and deal with it or not: it’s racist.”

Yet an online poll attached to her column asked readers to vote on what they thought of the Redskins nickname. The overwhelming response agreed with was: “Not offended, don’t think it should be changed.”

AwfulAnnouncing.com writer Matt Yoder, who last week pointed out that Grantland.com editor Bill Simmons has also refrained from Redskins references, connected enough dots to proclaim: “The change will happen, it’s just a matter of when the resistance decides to stop fighting a losing battle. As ‘Redskins’ gradually disappears from the mainstream sporting culture, sooner or later the nickname won’t be worth the negativity attached to it.”

So the fix is in because some writers with highly branded profiles and large Twitter followings have picked the more opportune moment in the media’s technological journey to address a long-term ethical dilemma that they re-think is finally time to address.

Granted, Grantland readers, if it takes a major publication or media outlet to really stick its neck out on this, Robert Lipsyte, the longtime New York sports columnist who these days acts as the ESPN ombudsman, is far more realistic.

He wrote a column last week asking on the eve of the network’s coverage of the Redskins-Eagles game: “So what if ESPN refused to use the R-word?”

You mean, while broadcasting an actual game? Wouldn’t that constitute some kind of conflict of interest?

“I have retired the routine use of the phrase ‘conflict of interest’ when it comes to ESPN,” Lipsyte wrote. “It’s simply inadequate to the nuances of the, um, conflicts of interest.”

Lipsyte seems pretty sure change won’t happen at ESPN – its too embedded with a longstanding NFL business relationship, and, more to the point, he also believes reporters shouldn’t become part of a story.

That’s already happened.

“Is part of being a journalists supposed to be an activist?” Dan Patrick asked on his syndicated radio show Thursday morning. “Is it a fine line there? Should then everyone not use the name?”

Yes, yes and probably yes. But there are more nuances to discuss.

Sunday’s edition of the now-buried “Outside The Lines” (5 a.m., ESPN) asks reporter Bob Holtzman to explain how different factions have emotional attachments to “Redskins,” which will lead into a panel discussion.

“I think more than anything, we’re just trying to educate people and let them decide – and I don’t have a strong opinion either way,” Holtzman said this week. “The process educated me as what ‘redskins’ means to some Native Americans on a Navajo reservation in Arizona, where there’s a movement to have that trademark canceled, having heard the explanation as to how it came about some 300 years ago when people traded Indian scalps.

“But then you talk to fans, some who played for the team, and they feel it does nothing but promote heritage and pride.”

To some outside the sports media realm, depending on their slant and agendas, it seems as if it’s just bad karma to keep using the name.

Last month, the online cultural affairs magazine Slate, owned by the Washington Post Company but operating editorially independent, decided to drop “Redskins” from all those times it has made reference to it. Mother Jones and The New Republic followed Slate’s lead.

“Changing the way we talk ... reflects an admirable willingness to acknowledge others who once were barely visible to the dominant culture, and to recognize that something that may seem innocent to you may be painful to others,” Slate’s David Plotz wrote. “So while the name Redskins is only a bit offensive, it’s extremely tacky and dated. ...”

Kind of like the Chief Wahoo logo, still used by the Cleveland Indians. Or relishing Notre Dame by their cute nickname, the Fighting Irish.

Seriously, the Chicago Blackhawks?

Media outrage hasn’t effected change there, or is that not as sexy a cause as challenging Snyder’s Redskins?

Back in 1992, the Portland Oregonian was among the first news outlets to drop all Native American-related team names -- Redskins, Braves, Indians and Redmen -- from its sports pages. And 20 years later, the media’s role in affecting change trudges on.

What color is the media’s parachute when this desensitization process is done with the masses? Maybe as beet red as Jack Kent Cooke’s face would have been years ago had he been confronted by his own employees when change could have really made some news.

RECORD, PAUSE, DELETE

Gauging the media’s high- and low-level marks of the week, and what’s ahead:

MANZIEL’S CLOSE-UP

CBS’ gameplan to employ what has been called “Johnny Cam” is part of the network arsenal for covering Saturday’s Alabama-Texas A&M game (Channel 2, 12:30 p.m.), Sports Illustrated reports. That’s one extra camera -- No. 17 in CBS’ arsenal -- focused only on Aggies Heisman-winning quarterback Johnny Manziel, because of the likelihood that he’ll do something YouTube-worthy -- and not in a good way -- during the course of the game, based on his performance in the first two A&M games this season. Harold Bryant, executive producer and vice president of production for CBS Sports, told Time magazine that Manziel justifies the attention “like Joe Namath.” Namath, of course, is an Alabama grad, but we get the point. “The camera is not being streamed online,” Bryant said. “It’s not a two-box with him in the corner. This is just to add a little bit more pageantry, color, texture, flavor.” Dynamite, he forgot to add. Should CBS cover more of Texas A&M games with this iso camera, is it a matter of time before it self-generates its own “Johnny Football 24/7” Showtime documentary?

MORT’S RETORT

Dan Patrick, the former ESPN “SportsCenter” anchor and independently franchised radio show host, seems to have discovered the sneakiest way to lure ESPN employees onto his platform without upsetting his ex-employer: Put out incorrect information about one of their stories. Thursday morning, Patrick wondered how ESPN NFL reporter Chris Mortensen was able to report that he talked to Dr. James Andrews about the condition of New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez’s shoulder and the need for surgery. Mortensen, hearing what Patrick said, called into clarify that he did not talk directly to Andrews. Patrick apologized and then invited Mortensen to come on the show, which Mortensen did in the final half hour. “If you broke news on this show, would you get yelled at?” Patrick asked Mortensen. “Yes,” said Mortensen, likely giving up valuable time that could have been spent on any number of ESPN programming at that moment.

MAYWEATHER’S PAYDAY

Fathom Events has more than two dozen movie theatres in Southern California offering live viewing of the Floyd Mayweather-Canelo Alvarez bout in the $20 ticket range as part of the far-reaching coverage of Saturday’s event through Showtime pay-per-view. The price for the theater experience, if you’re so motivated, is far discounted from the $75 charged for the high-definition telecast on your home flatscreen ($60 for standard def). Is all that some kind of an indication that Mayweather, already guaranteed some $41 million for this fight in addition to PPV revenue, is keeping the sport of boxing alive by himself? Al Bernstein, who called boxing on ESPN for more than 20 years and remains part of Showtime’s coverage, has taken offense that his former employer has decided to seize on that storyline in relation to this bout. “I am not some crazy crusader for the sport of boxing, I am simply a person who’s saying, let’s judge every sport with some context,” Bernstein told USA Today. “You can’t create a narrative that boxing is dying when the sport is producing great fight after great fight, drawing great numbers. You can’t just create that narrative because you want to create it. It’s lazy, stupid journalism. . . . It’s endemic now in the ESPN system to create a narrative and push it forward.” Bernstein will be joined by Brian Kenny, Mauro Ranallo and Paulie Malignaggi on the fight. Jim Gray tags along as the ringside “reporter” with Heidi Androl, while Steve Farhood, former editor in chief of The Ring and KO magazines, is used as the boxing historian on call.